Level Obstacles: Lose Weight, Target Fat! (EASY!!)

Options
1…1415171920…40

Replies

  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,041 Member
    Options
    I'm an Obstacle Leveler!

    THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE THERE FOR.

    :glasses:
  • Jimaudit
    Jimaudit Posts: 275
    Options
    bump for later awesomeness!!
  • cmriverside
    cmriverside Posts: 34,041 Member
    Options
    This is so much easier than the other really long and complicated "how to" threads!!

    Thanks.
  • magerum
    magerum Posts: 12,589 Member
    Options
    Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:

    In that case, to make it more complicated, for every number referenced, add a few random numbers after a decimal point.

    For example, if you see the number 1500, pretend like it is actually 1500.349. The increased complication, with the illusion of increased accuracy, will certain increase your results.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:
    tumblr_ly93j2JoR81rnqaoao1_500_large.gif
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    Options
    This can definitely be made more complicated! But the important thing to remember is that it doesn't NEED to be more complicated. There are trillions of variables that could be accounted for, but as Jof notes, we would at that stage be at trillions of decimals. The underlying physics are sound. The folks who say "eat less, move more" are expressing the most simplified distillation of the concept, albeit in a way that becomes less than informative.
  • LiftAllThePizzas
    LiftAllThePizzas Posts: 17,857 Member
    Options
    Bumping so I can come back to read everything and catch up.
  • BurtHuttz
    BurtHuttz Posts: 3,653 Member
    Options
    Bumping so I can come back to read everything and catch up.

    Cheers.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    Options
    Too simple. Can't be true. :noway:
    tumblr_ly93j2JoR81rnqaoao1_500_large.gif

    :heart:
  • Vailara
    Vailara Posts: 2,454 Member
    Options
    I'm a big fan of keeping it simple, so this is great! I think that sometimes all the talk of BMR throws people. You really only need your BMR if you're using it to calculate your TDEE. It really is as simple as finding out how many calories you burn day to day and eating a bit less than that.

    Just a couple of things, though. The TDEE calculator seems to overestimate for me (I prefer the ones at Scooby's Workshop). And also, I've been led to believe that some of the weight you lose is NOT fat (you say that a deficit of 3500 calories results in a pound of fat lost). Maybe I've got that wrong, but if not just saying it's a pound, rather than a pound of fat, would be clearer.
  • SheilaMc1958
    SheilaMc1958 Posts: 9
    Options
    Just what a needed this morning....good advice.
  • Boomer_44
    Boomer_44 Posts: 10
    Options
    Bump...
  • cristina3980
    cristina3980 Posts: 44 Member
    Options
    Thank you for this post!!!! I've been struggling to get the scale to drop for the last month & can't figure out what I'm doing wrong! So thank you so much!!!
  • VeronicaanddMatt0605
    VeronicaanddMatt0605 Posts: 122 Member
    Options
    Thank you so much for posting this your info is great
  • Sarauk2sf
    Sarauk2sf Posts: 28,072 Member
    Options
    I'm a big fan of keeping it simple, so this is great! I think that sometimes all the talk of BMR throws people. You really only need your BMR if you're using it to calculate your TDEE. It really is as simple as finding out how many calories you burn day to day and eating a bit less than that.

    Just a couple of things, though. The TDEE calculator seems to overestimate for me (I prefer the ones at Scooby's Workshop). And also, I've been led to believe that some of the weight you lose is NOT fat (you say that a deficit of 3500 calories results in a pound of fat lost). Maybe I've got that wrong, but if not just saying it's a pound, rather than a pound of fat, would be clearer.

    The post is an over-simplification so as to keep it easy for people and it's good for people starting out to get a gauge for the starting point. However, online TDEE calculators will generally overestimate your numbers if you have been dieting for a while as they do not take into account any adaptive thermogenics that happen when you diet. In addition, they use a slew of variables based on average populations. If you are different to that average population (e.g. different LBM, have thyroid issues etc), then they will not be accurate for you. They will also not be accurate in any evet as the activity levels are broad estimates. As I say, it's a starting point.

    The best gauge to use is your own results. If you are not seeing the results you expect after a few weeks, then you need to tweak your intake levels, or change up your activity.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    And also, I've been led to believe that some of the weight you lose is NOT fat (you say that a deficit of 3500 calories results in a pound of fat lost). Maybe I've got that wrong, but if not just saying it's a pound, rather than a pound of fat, would be clearer.
    You're both correct. For the simplicity, 1lb fat = 3500 calories, that is fact. And as we shrink most people shrink in LBM and fat. That being said if you include progressive weight training the amount of fat you lose goes up and the rest goes down, leaving the 3500 to be a more accurate number in those cases.

    Edit: And then I saw Sara's response...which is much simpler lol. I think I over complicated everything for everyone :p All the info is there in the OP. Eat a cut below TDEE, resistance training for composition and a higher resting metabolic rate.
  • jofjltncb6
    jofjltncb6 Posts: 34,415 Member
    Options
    The best gauge to use is your own results. If you are not seeing the results you expect after a few weeks, then you need to tweak your intake levels, or change up your activity.

    This is something I tend to preach here, because I firmly believe it is the single most important thing to achieving good results. Whatever it is you decide to do...(and the advice by OP in this thread is a wonderful place to start)...whatever your approach, track diligently and consistently. It isn't nearly as important that the numbers you're using are exactly correct (which is good since that's essentially impossible or at least improbable) but that you use a consistent approach in your tracking. Then, after an appropriate period of time, you can make the necessary tweaks to those number, *track consistently again with this tweaked approach*, and evaluate your results. This loop continues until (and even after) you achieve your goal(s). However, without consistent tracking, the "tweaks" you make are more "wild guesses" than they are intentional and guided adjustments.
  • CoderGal
    CoderGal Posts: 6,800 Member
    Options
    The best gauge to use is your own results. If you are not seeing the results you expect after a few weeks, then you need to tweak your intake levels, or change up your activity.

    This is something I tend to preach here, because I firmly believe it is the single most important thing to achieving good results. Whatever it is you decide to do...(and the advice by OP in this thread is a wonderful place to start)...whatever your approach, track diligently and consistently. It isn't nearly as important that the numbers you're using are exactly correct (which is good since that's essentially impossible or at least improbable) but that you use a consistent approach in your tracking. Then, after an appropriate period of time, you can make the necessary tweaks to those number, *track consistently again with this tweaked approach*, and evaluate your results. This loop continues until (and even after) you achieve your goal(s). However, without consistent tracking, the "tweaks" you make are more "wild guesses" than they are intentional and guided adjustments.
    essentially impossible accuracy improbable? Unpossible.
  • SheriKCourtney
    SheriKCourtney Posts: 77
    Options
    bump

Categories